Green v. General Petroleum Corp.
60 A.L.R. 475, 205 Cal. 328, 270 P. 952 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party conducts a lawful but inherently dangerous enterprise with knowledge that injury may result, they are held strictly liable for direct and proximate physical damage caused to another's property, even if they exercised ordinary care and were not negligent.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Green) were owners of improved residential property in a residence district outside Long Beach, California, which they occupied as their home.
- Defendant (General Petroleum Corporation) leased adjoining land and was engaged in drilling an oil well for the discovery and production of oil.
- In January 1922, the defendant's well reached a depth of about 2,592 feet and was cemented at 2,298 feet to shut off water as required by law.
- Just as the drilling crew finished bailing water to test the cement, the well erupted, blowing off control valves and wrecking the derrick.
- A stream of oil, gas, mud, and rocks shot into the air and onto the Greens' property, located about 200 feet from the well.
- The mixture poured forth for over 24 hours, covering the Greens' property to a depth of four to seven inches, destroying trees, lawns, and gardens, and greatly damaging their dwelling and personal property.
- The defendant knew that tremendous gas pressure underlay the locality and that other 'blow-outs' had occurred in the field, leading them to install devices to hold such a flow.
- The defendant had made careful cross-section logs of other wells, from which it was computed that no oil or gas would be encountered for at least 200 feet below where the 'blow-out' occurred, indicating they penetrated the danger zone sooner than anticipated.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs. Green) instituted an action in the trial court (sitting without a jury) against defendant (General Petroleum Corporation) to recover damages for injuries to their property.
- The plaintiffs' complaint contained two causes of action: one based upon liability without negligence due to trespass, and another based upon negligence.
- The trial court found that the defendant had exercised ordinary care in drilling the well and was not negligent in any particular.
- Despite the finding of no negligence, the trial court sustained the plaintiffs' first cause of action (liability without negligence) and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for damages.
- Defendant (General Petroleum Corporation) appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party engaged in the lawful drilling of an oil well strictly liable for direct physical damage to adjacent property caused by an uncontrollable 'blow-out,' even if the drilling operations were conducted with ordinary care and without negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Waste, C. J.
Yes, a party engaged in the lawful drilling of an oil well is strictly liable for direct physical damage to adjacent property caused by an uncontrollable 'blow-out,' even if the drilling operations were conducted with ordinary care and without negligence. The court relied on the ancient maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas ('use your own rights as not to infringe upon the rights of another'), which is codified in California Civil Code section 3514. The court reasoned that when an individual deliberately undertakes an enterprise, lawful in itself, under known conditions where injury to another may result, and such injury occurs as a direct and proximate consequence, the actor should be held absolutely liable, regardless of how carefully the act was performed. The 'blow-out' and subsequent covering of the plaintiffs' property with debris constituted an actual invasion and trespass. The court clarified that the defendant, by its deliberate act of boring the well, undertook the burden and responsibility of controlling and confining whatever force it uncovered. To hold otherwise would allow one owner to utilize another's land for their own benefit without compensation. The court distinguished this case from those involving inevitable accidents, acts of God, or nuisances per se, emphasizing that this was a direct physical invasion. The court affirmed the trial court's measure of damages for realty (cost of restoration if less than value, or value if cost exceeds it) and for the eviction (compensation for physical discomfort and deprivation of home use, left to the sound judgment of the court or jury).
Analysis:
This case significantly shaped the doctrine of strict liability in California, establishing that for certain ultrahazardous activities, liability attaches for direct physical harm regardless of the actor's negligence. It underscores the principle that the right to use one's property is not absolute and must not unduly infringe upon the rights of others, especially when engaging in activities with inherent risks. The decision provides crucial protection for property owners against industrial accidents causing direct invasion, shifting the burden of loss to the party undertaking the dangerous enterprise. It serves as a precedent for balancing economic development with environmental protection and property rights, highlighting the importance of a broader understanding of legal responsibility beyond fault-based negligence.
